--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 10, 2006, at 11:34 AM, new_morning_blank_slate wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > >> > >> One thing that Sanskrit literature and philosophy teaches us is that > >> each drishti or way-of-seeing is unique, and therefore each way-of- > >> seeing has it's own unique, internal logic. These are relative to one > >> another, but different. This is part of conventionality or the > >> relative. Waking state's linear logic may appear different to dream > >> state's logic, and waking state's way-of-seeing may see dreaming > >> state's logic as "magical thinking". It would also see the way-of- > >> seeing of Unity Consciousness the same way (as magical thinking). All > >> these things really tell you is looking *across* different ways-of- > >> seeing only shows that different ways-of-seeing are relative to one > >> another. > >> > >> Different beings, in different dimensions of existence will also > >> experience the same phenomenon differently. A traditional example > >> given would be of a river which a human would see as something to > >> drink, fish would see as their home and gods would see as nectar > >> (etc., etc.). > > > > The view in Jivan-mukta or other states does not change the chemistry > > and physics of a jet engine. The perspective and context aboutsuch > > knowledge may change, but Bernoulli's law is still Bernoulli's law. > > These are part of conventional reality which are part of impure > (samsaric) perception. It should be considered 'conventional valid > cognition of limited impure perception'. In other words it the style > of perception that can be seen by ordinary people. It explains > reality based on concepts of cause and effect. > > Ordinary people can perceive conventional logical constructs, like > physical laws, etc. They cannot perceive 'conventional valid > cognition of pure sublime vision, valid cognition of the *conceptual* > ultimate reality or valid cognition of the *nonconceptual* ultimate > reality. These pramanas (logical approaches) are beyond cause and > effect and do not necessarily adhere to the the style of cognition > used by ordinary beings who perceive limited impure perception. > > Enlightened or sublime beings do not require objects of > conceptutalization to understand, explain or manipulate deceptive > reality (impure or samsraic vision). > > Of course to ordinary persons the description of *nonconceptual* > ultimate reality seems like magical thinking and the performance of > action from the level of *nonconceptual* ultimate reality seems like > magic.
You have quite missed the point about magical thinking. And about subjective science. In this discussion no one is suggesting that they or others don't or can't have experiences that are not currently measured or modeled by objective science -- a such as your "conventional valid cognition of pure sublime vision, valid cognition of the *conceptual* ultimate reality or valid cognition of the *nonconceptual* ultimate reality" -- which while not well defined, in total carves out a sense of what your point is. Nor is it suggested that the experience and "description" of such is magical thinking. Per Kurtz's use of the term, "Magical thinking, whether involved with supernatural or paranormal beliefs, requires two preconditions. The first is an actual ignorance of the natural causes of events in question, and the second is the assumption that, in the absence of an obvious natural cause, there must be an unknown and un-natural cause. These two factors in conjunction allow for the development of ad hoc explanations, often relying upon an assumption that correlation demonstrates causation. For example, praying just before something good happens leads one to the belief that the positive event was caused by the prayer." While the phenomenon of experiences beyond those currently measured or modeled / predicted by science is clearly there, interpreteation of such expoeriences are open to question. "actual ignorance of the natural causes of events in question" Kurtz's phrase, may be in play in some cases. In the absence of an obvious natural cause, some appar to be led to explanations that soothe them, calm them, make them feel good. Other explanations, which are less comforting appear to be rejected or not even seiously considered. That does not mean that the experiences are not valid, or that they are unworthy of inquiry, nor that they are magical. The discussion on subjective science revolved around a system of inquiry, validation and research that could assist in clarifying and supporting communication of experiences that are not well addressed by objective sciences. Although cognitive science, well within the domains of objective science, is already doing a lot of this. There is no reason your "conventional valid cognition of pure sublime vision, valid cognition of the *conceptual* ultimate reality or valid cognition of the *nonconceptual* ultimate reality" could not be part of an subjective science based inquiry. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
